Wage & Hour Insightshttp://www.wagehourinsights.com
Guidance & Solutions for EmployersWed, 07 Dec 2016 21:19:13 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.5.3Subscribe with My Yahoo!Subscribe with NewsGatorSubscribe with My AOLSubscribe with BloglinesSubscribe with NetvibesSubscribe with GoogleSubscribe with PageflakesSubscribe with PlusmoSubscribe with The Free DictionarySubscribe with Bitty BrowserSubscribe with Live.comSubscribe with Excite MIXSubscribe with WebwagSubscribe with Podcast ReadySubscribe with WikioSubscribe with Daily RotationSeventh Circuit Says Student Athletes Are Not Employeeshttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WageHourInsights/~3/ptnpwOtrXys/
http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/12/seventh-circuit-says-student-athletes-are-not-employees/#respondWed, 07 Dec 2016 17:01:58 +0000http://www.wagehourinsights.com/?p=1428Continue Reading]]>Back in August, the National Labor Relations Board threw the higher education community a curve ball ruling that student assistants at Columbia University were employees under the National Labor Relations Act, and were therefore entitled to organize a union. (For more information see our alert on the case.) An obvious question left unanswered by the Columbia University case was whether and under what circumstances students may also be entitled to minimum wage and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On Monday, December 5, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in on at least part of that issue, holding that two former University of Pennsylvania athletes were not employees of either the University or the NCAA under the FLSA. Berger v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al.

Historical Context

The FLSA itself is distinctly unhelpful in assessing when students might be treated as employees, as it defines “employee” as “any individual employed by an employer,” and “employer” as “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.” The statute goes on to define “employ” as “to suffer or permit to work.”

Taken literally, that exceedingly broad definition would seem to sweep in all students who perform anything one could describe as “work.” That could include, for example, students who build sets in the drama department, run the student radio station, or do research work as part of a graduate program. However, the U.S. Supreme Court long ago rejected such a sweeping interpretation of the FLSA, holding in Walling v. Portland Terminal Co. that the FLSA “cannot be interpreted so as to make a person whose work serves only his own interest an employee of another person who gives him aid and instruction.”

In light of that holding, the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division has long stated in Chapter 10 of its Field Operations Handbook that graduate students and research assistants who perform work under the supervision of a faculty member as part of their degree program are primarily students, and are not regarded as employees under the FLSA. Likewise, students who participate in activities such as drama, performance groups, radio stations, intercollegiate athletics, and who serve as residence hall assistants as part of their educational experience are not deemed to be employees, even if they receive some remuneration such as reduced room and board charges or tuition credits. Conversely, students who perform work that lacks an educational component, such as washing dishes in the dining hall or basic clerical work, may well be regarded as employees.

The Penn Lawsuit

The recent Seventh Circuit opinion came in a lawsuit filed in the Southern District of Indiana by two former members of the University of Pennsylvania’s women’s track team, Gillian Berger and Taylor Henning. The students, with the help of some apparently very ambitious lawyers, filed suit not only against Penn, but also the NCAA and more than 120 other NCAA Division I member schools. They alleged that all Division I student athletes are “employees” within the meaning of the FLSA, and therefore entitled to be paid at least the minimum wage for all hours worked. The District Court quickly dismissed the claims against the NCAA and all of the schools other than Penn, holding that the students lacked standing to sue those defendants. The District Court also dismissed the FLSA claim against Penn, holding that as a matter of “economic reality,” student athletes are not employees entitled to be paid at the minimum wage. Berger v. National Collegiate Athletic Assoc. et al. The students appealed.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. First, the Court noted that in deciding whether “employee” status exists, courts must focus on the “economic reality” of the relationship to decide whether Congress intended the FLSA to apply to that particular relationship. The Court rejected the students’ contention that it should apply a seven-factor test adopted by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to help determine whether an intern is an employee under the FLSA, holding that the “economic realities” test requires a “more flexible standard,” and that the multi-factor test was not a helpful guide in the case of student athletes.

Turning to the specifics of the relationship at issue, the Court cited Supreme Court precedent noting the “revered tradition of amateurism in college sports.” It also noted that at least in other contexts, such as in workers’ compensation cases, most courts that have addressed the issue have concluded that student athletes are not employees. While concluding that the DOL’s Field Operations Handbook was not legally binding, the Court also found the DOL’s position that students athletes are not employees to be “persuasive.”

In about as definitive a statement as one could ask for in a legal decision, the Court concluded that the students could not pursue their claims:

Simply put, student-athletic “play” is not “work,” at least as the term is used in the FLSA. We therefore hold, as a matter of law, that student athletes are not employees and are not entitled to minimum wage under the FLSA.

However, a concurring opinion by Judge David Hamilton may put a few seconds back on the clock for at least some Division I athletes to make a “Hail Mary” play for FLSA coverage. Judge Hamilton begins by noting his agreement with the majority’s view of the case before the court, pointing out that if plaintiffs’ view of the law were correct, the FLSA would apply not only to college athletes, but to other students engaged in extracurricular activities including “college musicians, actors, journalists, and debaters.” While soundly rejecting that interpretation, Judge Hamilton tempers the majority’s definitive ruling by stating that he is “less confident” that the same reasoning should extend to “students who receive athletic scholarships to participate in so-called revenue sports like Division I men’s basketball and FBS football.” Hamilton stressed that this case did not present such a scenario because, as a member of the Ivy League, University of Pennsylvania did not provide athletic scholarships, and track and field was not a revenue generating sport. “With economic reality as our guide,” he concludes, “there may be room for further debate, perhaps with a developed factual record rather than bare pleadings, for cases addressing employment status for a variety of purposes.”

Upshot for Colleges and Universities

This case is a definitive win for institutions of higher education, and one that undoubtedly resolves some rising tension given the NLRB’s expansive rulings of late. In addition to making it clear that student athletes are not FLSA employees, the Court of Appeals’ ruling bolsters the position set forth in the DOL’s Field Operations Handbook that other students engaged in traditional extra-curricular and co-curricular activities are not FLSA employees. However, it doesn’t address the immediate question posed by the Columbia University decision, which is whether student assistants who exercise their right to unionize under the NLRA would also be entitled to minimum wage and overtime under the FLSA. Judge Hamilton’s concurrence may preview future cases asserting that the economic reality of a relationship governed by a collectively-bargained labor contract is inherently different than the relationship between a university and a student athlete, particularly given that the economic reality test was actually intended to be more expansive than the traditional common law test used under the NLRA. On the other hand, it is also likely that the Seventh Circuit’s ruling in the Penn case may lend support to efforts to challenge the NLRB’s Columbia University decision in court. The incoming Trump administration’s picks for the NLRB may also prompt another reversal in the Board’s position on student assistants as employees. While we frankly don’t know where things will settle, we can say with some confidence that this will continue to be one of the more interesting areas of labor and employment law to watch for some time to come.

]]>http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/12/seventh-circuit-says-student-athletes-are-not-employees/feed/0http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/12/seventh-circuit-says-student-athletes-are-not-employees/Exemption Rules Appeal Won't Be Resolved Before Obama Leaves Officehttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WageHourInsights/~3/E5bPqCKSP0g/
http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/12/exemption-rules-appeal-wont-be-resolved-before-obama-leaves-office/#respondMon, 05 Dec 2016 15:07:35 +0000http://www.wagehourinsights.com/?p=1479Continue Reading]]>It looks like the U.S. Department of Labor’s appeal of the order blocking the new overtime exemption rules won’t be decided before President Obama leaves office. Under the Court of Appeals’ regular rules, the DOL’s opening brief would have been due in mid-January, followed by the response brief 30 days later, and the DOL’s reply 14 days after that, likely taking the briefing process into March. Last Friday, December 2, the DOL filed a motion asking the Court of Appeals to set an expedited briefing schedule, under which the DOL would file its initial brief by December 16, and all briefing would be completed by February 7, 2017. The DOL’s motion further asks the Court of Appeals to set a date for oral argument on “the first available date after close of briefing.”

In short, even under the DOL’s proposed expedited schedule, this appeal would not be resolved until well after January 20, 2017, when Donald Trump will be sworn in as President. While we can certainly speculate that President Trump may pull the plug on further efforts to defend the new rules in court, we don’t know what the new administration will do on this issue once it takes office. There are also still other wild cards that could be played before this drama is over. Congress could step in and overrule the DOL, or the District Court could issue its final ruling on the merits of the case, which could re-start the appeals process regardless of which way the decision goes.

For our thoughts on what employers should do while this all plays out, see our prior post here.

]]>http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/12/exemption-rules-appeal-wont-be-resolved-before-obama-leaves-office/feed/0http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/12/exemption-rules-appeal-wont-be-resolved-before-obama-leaves-office/Not Dead Yet! DOL to Appeal Overtime Exemption Rules Injunctionhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WageHourInsights/~3/hGS0KqEnmis/
http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/12/not-dead-yet-dol-to-appeal-overtime-exemption-rules-injunction/#respondFri, 02 Dec 2016 17:34:09 +0000http://www.wagehourinsights.com/?p=1475Continue Reading]]>Sorry employers, the ride’s not over yet. For those of you keeping track, the U.S. Department of Labor’s new overtime exemption rules were set to go into effect yesterday, December 1, 2016. However, on November 22, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the rules from taking effect. It probably should not come as much of a surprise that the DOL is not simply rolling over on this issue. Yesterday, the DOL filed its official Notice of Appeal, taking the case up to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Our prediction meter is seriously out of calibration after the events of the last month, so we’re not going to attempt to handicap the DOL’s chances on appeal, at least not at this early stage. And let’s not forget, even if the DOL succeeds in its appeal, the forthcoming Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress may well take steps to block or change the rules once President Obama leaves office in January.

So, what should employers do now? For the time being, nothing really has changed. The injunction blocking the new rules remains in effect until the District Court or the Court of Appeals says otherwise. However, the injunction could be lifted at any time. If that happens, the rules will take effect. Arguably they will be effective retroactively to December 1, notwithstanding the injunction that is currently in place. This leaves employers who have exempt employees with salaries below $913 per week in an awkward spot. Those who have already implemented changes to comply with the new rules should strongly consider staying the current course at least until the dust settles and the litigation is resolved. Employers who have not implemented changes have to weigh the cost and of doing so now against the risk of having to retroactively pay overtime should the injunction be lifted, even if the result is only a temporary reprieve. At a minimum, employers may wish to minimize any overtime work by potentially affected employees and ensure that they are accurately tracking work hours.

We will report on further developments as they occur.

]]>http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/12/not-dead-yet-dol-to-appeal-overtime-exemption-rules-injunction/feed/0http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/12/not-dead-yet-dol-to-appeal-overtime-exemption-rules-injunction/New Exemption Rules Blocked - Now What?http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WageHourInsights/~3/DPsEUi5SbAg/
http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/11/new-exemption-rules-blocked-now-what/#respondWed, 23 Nov 2016 14:34:37 +0000http://www.wagehourinsights.com/?p=1466Continue Reading]]>Yesterday, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dealt employers yet another surprise in this season of upsets with its decision in State of Nevada v. U.S. Department of Labor, halting the implementation of the DOL’s new FLSA overtime exemption rules, which were set to take effect December 1, 2016. The rules would have increased the minimum salary for exempt executive, administrative and professional employees from $455 per week to $913 per week, or about $47,476 per year. The court issued a nationwide injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the new salary threshold for exempt employees. As a result of the court’s ruling, the new rules will not take effect on December 1, the prior rules will remain in effect, and the timing of a change in the rules, if any, is completely up in the air.

While the new rules already faced an uncertain future under the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled congress, most legal observers gave this lawsuit a low probability of success. The complaint, filed on September 19, 2016 by a coalition of 21 states, claims that the DOL exceeded its authority under the FLSA and unlawfully infringed upon states’ budgets by enacting the new rules. A coalition of business groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also filed a parallel lawsuit, which was later consolidated with the states’ case. The states asked the court to grant a preliminary injunction blocking the rules from taking effect until a final ruling in the case. For their part the business groups asked the court to skip the preliminaries and expedite its final ruling on the merits.

Although the court declined to issue a final decision for the time being, it granted the states’ motion for a temporary nationwide injunction blocking the new rules from taking effect and prohibiting the DOL from expending any resources to enforce them. The court found that Congress intended for the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions to be based on an employee’s actual duties and responsibilities, rather than the employee’s salary. By issuing a rule that “categorically excluded” employees who performed exempt job duties from exemption based on a “de facto salary-only test,” the court determined that the DOL exceeded its authority and violated the unambiguous intent of Congress to exempt employees based upon the type of work they perform. While the Court’s ruling seems to suggest that the low $455 per week salary threshold in the existing rules might be permissible because it screens out only “obviously non-exempt employees,” the court did not address whether a smaller increase in the current minimum might have been permissible. It also did not rule on whether that lower minimum salary threshold could be subject to automatic increases as the DOL had proposed, finding instead that “because the Final Rule is unlawful, the Court concludes the Department also lacks the authority to implement the automatic updating mechanism.”

Importantly, this ruling is not limited to the States that filed the lawsuit. The Court’s ruling is nationwide in scope and applies to all employers covered by the FLSA. However, much uncertainty remains. Rulings on preliminary injunctions are subject to immediate appeal. While it is rare for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a preliminary injunction, this is an unusual and unexpected decision, and the Obama Administration may well try its luck in a bid to preserve the new rules. While its ruling on the preliminary injunction likely forecasts the district court’s final ruling on the merits of the case, it is also possible that the court may reach a different result upon final review and lift the injunction.

We also do not know at this time exactly what President-elect Trump will do on this issue when he takes office in January. He may well simply order a halt to further government efforts to defend the Obama administration rules, in which case the current injunction will likely remain in effect and the rules will be dead. But the President-elect is nothing if not unpredictable, and it is at least possible (if unlikely) that his populist side may win out over business interests and lead him to defend the new rules. It is also possible that Congress may step into the fray, either by voting to block the new rules under the Congressional Review Act, or by enacting legislation that either does away with the salary increase or phases it in over several years.

This leaves employers with a difficult question: What now? Unfortunately we are still waiting for a definitive answer.

Employers who are contemplating changes to comply with the new rules but have not yet announced them should consider waiting to see what happens before they act. Employers that have already announced or implemented adjustments will need to decide whether to roll them back, and if so whether to do that now or wait for the dust to clear. Employers who do announce further changes based on this ruling should be clear with employees that further changes might follow depending on the final resolution of the lawsuit and the response of Congress and the new administration. Obviously those communications will need to be handled carefully, particularly if they mean rescinding pay increases or other changes that employees may have seen as favorable.

Finally, as employers plan to respond to these issues, they should watch not only the courthouse in Texas and politicians in Washington D.C., but their state legislatures and city councils. New York already has a higher minimum salary for exempt white collar employees ($675 per week), and has recently proposed increases even greater than those in the now blocked federal rules. If the federal rules are declared dead, other state and local governments may be inspired to take similar action.

]]>http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/11/new-exemption-rules-blocked-now-what/feed/0http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/11/new-exemption-rules-blocked-now-what/DOL Exemption Rules Enjoinedhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WageHourInsights/~3/MCf5qjaXn0A/
http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/11/dol-exemption-rules-enjoined/#respondTue, 22 Nov 2016 23:06:47 +0000http://www.wagehourinsights.com/?p=1458Continue Reading]]>Well folks, looks like all that work we did to get ready for the new exemption rules taking effect 12/1 was just for fun. A federal court just blocked the rules from taking effect nationwide. This is just in so we haven’t had a chance to digest the opinion yet, but here it is if you want to read it for yourself. We will provide more analysis soon.

]]>http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/11/dol-exemption-rules-enjoined/feed/0http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/11/dol-exemption-rules-enjoined/What Will The Trump Administration Mean for Wage and Hour Law?http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WageHourInsights/~3/gjrIthiwSdE/
http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/11/what-will-the-trump-administration-mean-for-wage-and-hour-law/#respondWed, 09 Nov 2016 15:26:55 +0000http://www.wagehourinsights.com/?p=1451Continue Reading]]>This is a post I certainly didn’t expect to be writing even 12 hours ago, but now that the results of the election are clear, it’s time to give some thought to what lies ahead under the forthcoming Trump administration. Details will of course start to emerge over the next couple of months, but I have a few early predictions about what employers should and should not expect.

An eventual repeal of the new FLSA overtime rules just became much more likely. While it would take time for President Trump’s labor department to go through the process of issuing new regulations to replace those set to take effect December 1, it is highly likely that Congress will address the issue through legislation now that the likelihood of a veto by a Democratic president has been removed. The real question is whether such legislation would simply roll back to the old minimum salary level of $455 per week, or, as some in Congress have proposed, phase in a more gradual increase over the next few years.

We don’t know what will happen with the new exemption rules between now and January when Trump takes office. There are a few different possibilities. One is that the Obama administration will stay the course and move forward with the rules as if nothing has changed. Employers (at least, those who want to be in compliance with the law) will have to move forward with reclassifying employees and making other necessary changes to their compensation structures and payroll practices by December 1. If the law later changes, those employers will need to make some decisions about whether to roll any changes back or just leave well enough alone. A second possibility is that the Obama administration might delay any DOL enforcement actions under the new rules in anticipation of legislation under the new administration. I have no inside knowledge here, but that seems unlikely. The current DOL is strongly committed to the new rules and likely wants to see employers implement changes in the hopes that they will stick even if Congress enacts legislation lowering the salary level once again. Also, even if the DOL does not itself take action to enforce the new rules, the rules remain law unless they’re overturned either by a new rule (which must go through an extensive rulemaking process, just as the current rule did) or by an act of Congress. So even if the DOL does not go after employers who are not in compliance with the new rules, that does not stop private litigants, or for that matter state labor departments in states that (like Illinois) mirror the federal rules in their state overtime laws. There are a couple of other outside possibilities. One is that the current Congress strikes a deal with the lame-duck Obama administration to enact legislation preserving some increase in the minimum salary but phasing it in over time. If done quickly this might save employers from having to make changes now and reverse course later. While that might be the sensible approach to the problem, I’m not holding my breath. The other wild card here is the pending lawsuits seeking to overturn the new rules. While most legal experts don’t give them a high likelihood of success, stranger things have happened.

The DOL’s posture toward employers is likely to change – eventually. Under the Obama administration, it seems fair to say that the U.S. Department of Labor has become much more aggressive in pursuing enforcement action against employers and in using administrative action to impose new restrictions on employers. The DOL has hired more investigators and field staff, and anecdotally I can certainly report that more of our clients are being visited by DOL agents in the last couple of years than was previously the case. But that did not happen overnight when President Obama took office. The federal government is a huge ship, and it takes a long time to change direction. It seems likely that the Trump administration will seek to rein in the Department of Labor, particularly in its more aggressive initiatives to change (or, as the DOL would probably put it, fill in the gaps) in existing law through “Administrator Interpretations” and rulemaking. It’s also likely that the DOL will see its enforcement budgets cut, meaning fewer audits. However, just as it took time for the Obama administration to change the DOL’s course from the relatively business-friendly one set under President Bush, employers should not expect to see these changes until the new administration has had time to put its own team in place, establish budget priorities, and make the other policy changes needed to effect their vision for the agency.

State and local governments will continue to ramp up their regulations. While employers may welcome some of the changes that they are likely to see at the federal level under the new Trump administration, those changes are likely to accelerate the recent trend of state and local governments enacting their own regulations on employers, at least in the remaining “blue” strongholds around the country. This may further complicate the lives of HR professionals whose organizations operate across multiple jurisdictions.

Of course employers should take all of these predictions with a very large grain of salt because, frankly, we don’t know what is going happen now. For the time being, the best advice that we can give to employers is to stay the course, keep preparing for the new FLSA exemption rules set to take effect on December 1, and wait to see where the dust settles. But also be prepared for further changes that may well be on their way.

]]>http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/11/what-will-the-trump-administration-mean-for-wage-and-hour-law/feed/0http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/11/what-will-the-trump-administration-mean-for-wage-and-hour-law/Thirty Days to Go – Are Your Employee Classifications In Order?http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WageHourInsights/~3/NWVMwGTkV8w/
http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/11/thirty-days-to-go-are-your-employee-classifications-compliant/#respondTue, 01 Nov 2016 14:34:53 +0000http://www.wagehourinsights.com/?p=1442Continue Reading]]>As we have reported over the last couple of months, there have been recent attempts by business groups and states to block the U.S. DOL’s new overtime exemption rule from taking effect on December 1, 2016. Despite these efforts, no court has yet to issue any ruling. With just 30 days to go, employers should not pin all of their hopes on a last minute reprieve from the new minimum salary threshold requirement. Instead, employers must continue to prepare to comply with the new rule. With states having various state notification requirements, please keep in mind that a change in classification may require advance notice to employees before December 1. Employers should consult their applicable state laws and plan accordingly.

We will continue to provide updates on this pressing issue.

]]>http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/11/thirty-days-to-go-are-your-employee-classifications-compliant/feed/0http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/11/thirty-days-to-go-are-your-employee-classifications-compliant/Business Groups Ask Court To Expedite Ruling On Overtime Exemption Ruleshttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WageHourInsights/~3/RyUyVU4bZKc/
http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/10/business-groups-ask-court-to-expedite-ruling-on-overtime-exemption-rules/#respondTue, 18 Oct 2016 14:19:15 +0000http://www.wagehourinsights.com/?p=1434Continue Reading]]>In our last post we reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and fifty-plus other business groups suing to block the U.S. DOL’s overtime exemption rule from taking effect had not yet moved to expedite the court’s ruling on the case, making it unlikely that the court would issue any sort of ruling before the rules take effect on December 1, 2016. Well, now they have. In a motion for expedited summary judgment filed Friday October 14, the business groups are now asking the court to rule on the merits of their case on the same timetable as is set for its hearing of the motion for preliminary injunction in the parallel lawsuit being pursued by a coalition of 21 states. On Monday, the business groups followed up with a motion asking the court to consolidate their case with the parallel state lawsuit. According to the motion, the states and the DOL do not oppose consolidating the cases.

The Court’s docket indicates that the DOL’s response to the motion for summary judgment is due on October 31, 2016. The DOL’s response to the states’ parallel motion for a preliminary injunction is likewise due on October 31, with the states’ reply due on November 10 and any sur-reply by the DOL due on November 15. The motion is set for hearing on November 16, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

Both cases are pending before District Judge Amos L. Mazzant. Mazzant was nominated to the bench by President Obama in 2014. He previously served as a United States Magistrate Judge from 2009 to 2014, and as a justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas from 2004 to 2009.

It is conceivable that these combined cases could offer employers some relief from the new rules before the effective date. But we’re not holding our breath. While employers might sensibly delay announcing any changes while these lawsuits play out, they should still be preparing to comply by December 1.

]]>http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/10/business-groups-ask-court-to-expedite-ruling-on-overtime-exemption-rules/feed/0http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/10/business-groups-ask-court-to-expedite-ruling-on-overtime-exemption-rules/States Seek Preliminary Injunction Blocking New Overtime Ruleshttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WageHourInsights/~3/vZhmwi_CggI/
http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/10/states-seek-preliminary-injunction-blocking-new-overtime-rules/#respondFri, 14 Oct 2016 14:44:36 +0000http://www.wagehourinsights.com/?p=1430Continue Reading]]>On September 20 we reported about a lawsuit by 21 states seeking to block the U.S. DOL’s new overtime exemption rules. This week, the states followed up their complaint by filing an Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction, asking the court to block enforcement of the new rule pending a final ruling on the states’ claims. According to the court’s docket no hearing date has been set.

There have been no further developments in a similar lawsuit filed on the same day by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of business groups. To date, the business groups have not filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The court’s docket reflects that the Labor Department’s answer to the complaint is not due until November 21, 2016.

At this point, we cannot recommend that employers pin their hopes on these lawsuits to relieve them from having to comply with the new FLSA exemption rules effective December 1, 2016.

Note: This post has been corrected. The original post stated that the Chamber of Commerce lawsuit does not challenge the base salary increase included in the new rule. It does.

]]>http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/10/states-seek-preliminary-injunction-blocking-new-overtime-rules/feed/0http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/10/states-seek-preliminary-injunction-blocking-new-overtime-rules/House Votes to Delay OT Rule But Employers Are Not Out of the Woods Yethttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WageHourInsights/~3/SZSOWexPs8A/
http://www.wagehourinsights.com/2016/09/house-votes-to-delay-ot-rule-but-employers-are-not-out-of-the-woods-yet/#respondThu, 29 Sep 2016 18:38:20 +0000http://www.wagehourinsights.com/?p=1424Continue Reading]]>Yesterday, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill, H.R. 6094 (the “bill” referred to as the Regulatory Relief for Small Businesses, Schools and Nonprofits Act), that would delay the effective date of the Department of Labor’s new overtime rule by 6 months, from December 1, 2016 to June 1, 2017. The Vote passed the House 246-177, with 5 Democrats voting in favor of it. This is just the latest challenge to the DOL’s doubling of the minimum salary threshold for the white collar exemptions (executive, administrative, and professional) under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Business groups, congressional Republicans and State Officials have all criticized the drastic economic impact such a measure would have on businesses.

Before employers start dancing in the streets, it is important to understand the significant uphill battle the bill faces before it could become law. First, the bill must pass the Senate, which will be no easy task. It is very possible that the bill itself may not even reach the Senate floor for a vote. But if it does, passage of the bill is not highly likely given the current make-up of the Senate (54 Republicans, 44 Democrats and 2 Independents who caucus with Democrats). Indeed, we already know that the DOL’s rule in its current form faces some opposition from Democrats given that 5 House Democrats voted for the bill already, and 15 other Democrats introduced a bill in July that would “phase in” the higher salary threshold over a three-year period. Even if the bill survives the Senate, a Presidential veto is almost certain to follow. President Obama released a statement strongly opposing any delay in the rule’s effective date, and threatening to veto any such law. Congress likely would not have enough votes to override any such veto.

So what does this all mean to employers? Given these procedural roadblocks and the impending effective date, most legal observers continue to recommend that employers assume that implementation of the new rule will proceed on December 1, 2016 and to prepare accordingly. We likewise encourage employers to continue their efforts to prepare for a December 1 effective date and get their “house” in order. We will continue to follow this issue and provide updates as new developments arise.